Virginia TechGovernance Minutes Archive

April 14, 1992

The following minutes were officialy approved on 28 April, 1992.
Faculty Senate
Minutes
14 April 1992
32 Pamplin Hall
I. President Leon Geyer called the Senate to order at 7:00 PM.
Visitors Peggy Rasnick (Staff Senate), John Ashby
(Spectrum), and representatives of student government
organizations (see below) were welcomed. Roll call and
announcements were held until the program was completed.
II. A. Present: Bunce, Geyer, Marriott, Vinson, Webb, Wright,
Howard, Wang, Ficenec, Murray, Baumbach (for Snoke),
Sorrentino, Tideman, Webster, Williams, McDaniels, Brown,
Crittenden, deWolf, Hasselman, Michelsen, Hardell (for Neu),
Pierce, Walker, Asche, Gordon (for Jones), Barbeau, Beamish,
Parsons, Beagle, Norstedt, Carrig, Eng, Saunders, Shires
(alt.)
B. Absent: Feret, Flick, Kerns, Poole, Barker, Falkinham,
Holtzman, Hult, Miller, Olin, Simmons, Fern, Hicks, Rakes,
Clowes
C. New senators present: Mullins (Entomology), O'Brien
(Architecture), Graham (Art/Art History), Scigaj (English),
Shumsky (History), Armstrong (Electrical Engineering),
Laudgraf (Engineering Science and Mechanics), Martin
(Veterinary Medicine).
III. Announcements
A. The draft roster of the 1992/93 Senate has been
distributed. Make certain the information,
particularly the e-mail address, is correct. Some
colleges still need to provide alternatives.
B. Next meetings
1. 24 April 1992. Breakfast with President McComas,
7:30 AM, CEC Old Guard Room. Old and new senators
and the faculty association presidents are
invited.
2. 28 April 1992. Election meeting. Nomination
forms should be returned as soon as possible.
Thee elections are especially important since
faculty will be chairing the commissions.
C. Senate officers met with President McComas on 1 April.
Among items discussed:
1. Faculty representation on the Virginia Tech
Foundation Board. President McComas suggested
that President Geyer meet with the chairman of the
Foundation Board to discuss faculty involvement.
2. Faculty representation on the Board of Visitors.
At the August meeting, selected faculty will meet
with BOV subcommittees. Chairs or members of
commissions probably would be the most appropriate
representatives.
3. President McComas expressed concern over future
legislative support for the university. SCHEV is
going to do a faculty load analysis to assess
faculty productivity. He stressed the need for
the university to publicize the importance of
research to the state.
D. President Geyer attended the April Board of Visitors
meeting.
1. The Board is concerned with the efficiency of
management in the university, but is quite
supportive of the current administration.
2. Tuition was raised, but with some reluctance.
3. Approval was given for construction of a parking
garage.
E. Senate officers met with the Provost on 30 March.
1. The Provost supported faculty representation on
the Foundation Board but indicated he would not be
an advocate.
2. He was receptive to the Senates' proposed
resolution on domestic travel.
3. Regarding executive search firms, the Provost said
he would go ahead with his plan to use the firm.
F. President Geyer and the secretary met with the faculty
association presidents on 27 March to discuss how the
budget review process could be used at the college
level.
G. President Geyer met with Charles Forbes and other
members of the administration to discuss administrative
costs. Endowment accounts will be assessed by 1.5% to
recover money for management, fund-raising, etc.
H. An article in the 31 March Collegiate Times contained a
proposal (from a CSA subcommittee) to include a
question on student evaluation forms regarding the
instructor's attitudes on matters of race, sex,
politics, etc. While the concerns might be legitimate,
such a question is open to abuse. For the time being,
the faculty will work behind the scenes on this
proposal.
IV. Program: Student-Faculty Relations
Speakers: Melissa Byrne, President, SGA
Kevin Mottley, President-elect, SGA
Tony Townsend, President, GSA
Ken Kahn, President-elect, GSA
A. Townsend thanked the Senate and the faculty in general
for their support of graduate students. He hoped for
greater communication on objects of joint concern, such
as an additional seat for graduate students on CSA.
Enumerating some of the needs of graduate students,
Townsend discussed better housing, parking privileges
equal to faculty/staff, reducing tuition costs for ABD
students (similar to the UVa program), and a more
competitive wage/benefit/insurance package. On the
other hand, the inequities of Virginia Tech -
particularly the financial inequities - are overshowed
by the high quality of graduate education at the
university.
B. Byrne shared comments, both positive and negative, she
had collected on students' opinions of faculty. She
suggested that the university study those areas where
graduate students (as opposed to faculty) are teaching
undergraduates. She strongly encouraged faculty to
share their research with undergraduates in their
classes, which would help the students understand the
faculty and the university and would improve faculty-
student communications.
C. Mottley pointed out some similarities between students
and faculty, chiefly that, no matter what the
perception, neither group has nine-to-five jobs. The
students are aware that they are paying for their
education, and many are considering the quality of
teaching as a commodity, which can be stressful for
faculty. In an effort to improve faculty stamina and
endurance, Mottley challenged the Senate to a
volleyball game with the SGA. Senators can get into
condition over the summer.
D. Kahn, backing Townsend's concerns, referred to them as
"supportability" issues that could be worked through by
faculty-GSA cooperation. In the coming year, the GSA
will be looking at the role of graduate education at
Tech, in the state, and nationally. He asked for
faculty support and assistance in this endeavor.
President Geyer thanked the speakers and accepted the SGA's
volleyball challenge.
E. Discussion.
1. Tuition, etc.
Question: How does Tech's financial package for graduate
students compare to those of other universities?
Answer (Townsend): Because graduate students at Tech are
required to pay tuition, the benefits package is
about 50% of what a student would receive at
"sister" schools. The tuition waivers were a
great idea, but they revert back to the
departments for use at the department's
discretion. Most departments use the money to
attract new students for the first year, but offer
little to graduate students after that. He would
like to see more extensive support for all grad
students.
Observation: The College of Architecture and Urban Studies
proportions the money, giving about 10% for first-year
students and reserving the rest for second- and third-
year students.
Question: Regarding tuition increases, how much more can
undergraduates bear?
Answer (Mottley): The in-state students seem to be able to
handle the increases. The SGA is concerned mostly with
out-of-state students who come to Tech rather than
attend a similar institution in their home state; the
margin of advantage is closing. SGA is stressing the
quality of education at Tech in this regard.
Answer (Byrne): As an out-of-state student, her tuition has
increased 40% since she came to Tech. Had she known
this might happen, she would not have chosen Tech.
Students like herself will be continuing to work for
the bond issue, taking trips to Richmond, etc., but
they need the support of the faculty to keep attitudes
positive.
Question: Could the graduate students prioritize their
concerns? There might be things on which we could work
together.
Answer (Townsend): The most important matter is the
economic status the students will have when they leave
the university. As all costs go up, the debts
increase. His and his wife's combined debt will be
$47,000. He is afraid this situation may lead to a
lowering in the quality of graduate students.
Answer (Kahn): Graduate tuition has had the highest jump.
How does this affect the role of graduate education in
the state? We have to work on this locally and at the
state level.
2. Role of the faculty
Question: In a recent column in the Roanoke Times, Gordon
Davies assigned a role to faculty that differs from the
perceptions of some, emphasizing the need for
universities to support more applied research, as
opposed to pure research. What do you think?
Answer (Townsend): Given the outside pressures on higher
education, this is almost inevitable. Graduate
students need to be prepared for this, but current
faculty cannot be expected to change overnight. There
has to be a link between what the university does and
what benefits the commonwealth can derive.
3. Classroom and campus climate
Observation: Classrooms will be greatly improved over the
next few years. This is the first time in Tech's
history that money has been budgeted specifically for
improvement in the classroom environment.
Question: Many classrooms are marred by appalling graffiti.
How does this form of communication affect the
classroom climate?
Answer (Byrne): Older classrooms seem to be the most
abused. Perhaps the professor should remind the
students not to make things worse.
Question: The graffiti is not just untidy - the comments
are racist, sexist, violent, homophobic. Everything we
attempt to do to improve classroom climate is negated
by this. Can the students get a handle on this
problem?
Answer (Townsend): A lack of respect for property is an
historic problem with students. The other problem is
the thought behind the language on the wall - this
underscores the tensions existing on the campus between
races, sexes, etc. Both organizations are working on
efforts to identify the tensions and establishing
methods for defusing them. The GSA has had little
success in dealing with the problem and in bringing people
together. The climate on this campus seems to be more
pressurized in this area than at other schools.
Answer (Byrne): All student senators were required to
attend a sexual assault and rape awareness seminar.
This was a successful effort that included many more
students than those in SGA. On campus, however, many
compare Tech to a stew, rather than a melting-pot.
Observation: The new core curriculum supports courses in
diversity. If every student were to take courses in
black studies, women's studies, the third world, and
the environment, the graffiti would disappear.
Observation (Townsend): Students believe that taking
courses that identify groups as "special" (without
identifying their own group as special) has, in part,
created the tensions. What is needed is a program to
teach students the common culture of academia,
including respect, courtesy, dignity, and the like.
4. Honor System
Question: There's a general perception in the country that
student cheating is on the increase. Is the Honor
System really working?
Answer (Townsend): There are separate systems for graduates
and undergraduates. The system is successful in some
areas, such as plagiarism, computer programs, etc. But
the Honor Court is not hearing many cases brought
forward, claiming a clack of physical evidence, even if
the cheating is reported by several people. The GTAs
have little confidence in the system.
Observation (Byrne): Why do faculty not report people in
blatant cheating situations?
Observation: When a student was reported for plagiarizing a
computer program, the Honor Court did not follow
through because the program was not a significant
percentage of the student's grade. When a faculty
member goes through all the steps and there is no
conviction in a case like this, it's hardly worth the
faculty member's time.
Observation (Townsend): At UVa, the system was single
sanction; cheating meant expulsion. There's a
different climate surrounding Tech's Honor System.
UVa, however, has dropped single sanction.
Observation: Greater participation in the process might
clarify matters for the faculty.
President Geyer reminded the Senate that there will be
reports from both the graduate and undergraduate Honor
Systems at the next Senate meeting.
5. Athletics
Question: Is there any hope of getting the $1.00 per
student portion of the activity fee diverted to
recreation?
Answer (Byrne): There are two issues: First, is there
a need to increase recreation facilities? Second, is
too much money going to athletics? Everyone agreed
that there was a need for money for rec sports, and,
according to the Division of Student Affairs, the money
was there. It was how the money was spent that was the
issue. Athletics is a separate issue. It seemed that
the money for rec sports was available, but it needed
to be reallocated to areas where it was needed instead
of taxing the athletic portion.
President Geyer thanked the student panel and Senator
Barbeau who had suggested the discussion topic.
V. Program: Health Care Issues
Speaker: Ann Spencer, Associate Vice President for
Personnel and Administrative Services
Senator Ed Bunce, Chair, Employee Benefits
Committee
A. The Senate viewed a state-produced video, "Commonwealth
of Virginia Open Enrollment 1992," that attempted to
explain the new Key Advantage system.
B. Spencer provided some background to the development of
Key Advantage.
1. The 1991 General Assembly directed a revision of
the state health care program. The objective was
to reduce costs through a preferred provider plan.
The Governor set up an advisory committee, with
consultants, to devise a plan. There was no
representation from higher education on the
committee. The new plan was to be included in the
budget package for 1992. The plan was presented
to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee, was accepted (probably because it
showed a $64 million saving), put into the budget,
and passed. Most legislators did not realize the
plan was included.
2. It was not until mid-March that the university
began to learn details of the plan, which is to be
implemented 1 July. Spencer contacted the state
Department of Personnel and Training to express
concerns from the university and the region but
found the responses she received were rather
unhelpful. She reported the concerns to President
McComas and his staff. The President, in turn,
took these to the Presidents' Council (a state-
wide group), Minnis Ridenour took them to the
state group of collegiate business officers, and a
task force was formed with Ridenour as chair.
[Spencer distributed a handout, "Issues Raised by
College and University Committee on Health
Benefits." Copies of the handout are available
from the secretary.] The task force encouraged a
transitional plan prior to full adoption of Key
Advantage.
3. Timing is a major issue. An equally important
issue is the number of physicians who have signed
up for the program. In the Sourcebook list, there
are only seven physicians. The state and Blue
Cross, however, have assured the university that
there are many more signees. The university is
facing significant problems in attempting to
implement the plan, and is receiving little help
from the state/Blue Cross. At the last meeting
she attended, she was told by the Blue Cross
representative (who could provide no detailed
information): "Trust me, just trust me."
4. There was a large rally in Richmond last week in
opposition to the plan. Legislative action is
needed to effect change. The legislature is
meeting tomorrow - some action may be taken. At
the minimum, we hope for delayed implementation.
C. Discussion
Question: What about the issue of referrals to OB/GYNs?
Answer: That is one of the major issues. We are meeting
with local physicians on Thursday to discuss this.
Question: How does one choose a dentist or a therapist?
Answer: Any dentist currently under KeyCare is
automatically signed on - no referral is required.
As to therapist, it is unclear if the same
provision stands. Specialists are the current
network of KeyCare physicians, but it is not clear
if this applies to mental health specialists. It
would be best if we could continue as we are now
until a better implementation plan is designed.
Any managed care program requires tremendous
planning. This can't be done by 1 July, given
that the plan was only passed last month.
Enrollment is to take place in May, just when
school is out and the faculty disperses.
Question: In business, there is often a choice for health
care. Are we locked into the state program?
Answer: The state is self-insured; Blue Cross administers
the program. The design of the program is up to
the state. We have no option to go outside. We
have discussed pursuing a separate plan for higher
education as a long-term objective.
Observation: This plan and KeyCare pays the doctors less
less than Medicare. It's shocking that we are
being subsidized by the poor and unemployed.
Question: Doe the primary care physician dictate your
specialists?
Answer: The plan is to have each patient's care managed by
one physician. Each individual will work with the
primary care physician to ensure continued care by
the specialist of choice. But doctors also have
major problems with the plan. We are caught in
the ongoing battle between the insurance carriers
and the doctors.
Observation: If your primary care physician believes the
best specialist for you is at Duke, you'll have to
pay. My freedom of choice, and my doctor's
freedom of choice is being eroded. This is
unacceptable.
Question: How are weekend emergencies to be handled? What
about children and other dependents who are away?
Answer: The problem of family members living away is on
the list of concerns, along with the problem of
out-of-state employees. We have been told that
these people can designate a primary care
physician in that area. Also, the primary care
physician can be changed once a month. Emergency
care is covered.
Observation: According to personnel in a local physician's
office, an office visit to the primary care
provider in order to get referred would be
required. This would double the paperwork.
Spencer: We are all experiencing inconsistency in
information. Even the Sourcebook does not provide
enough.
Question: Great power is being given to the referring
physician. Convenient arrangements, possibly
financial, could be made. Has thought been given
to this?
Answer: One of the concerns listed is the quality of care
that might result from the system.
Question: Many people have ongoing medical conditions. Do
they always have to be referred by the PCP?
Answer: That's what we've been told. We are suggesting
grandfathering of pregnancies and preexisting
conditions.
Question: How will this save the state $64 million?
Observation: No one has really explained this.
Answer: One of the savings (we've been told) is that the
Basic Plan will no longer be offered. The mental
portion of Basic was very costly. We are unclear
as to how this will be covered in the new plan.
Question: Is there any incentive for doctors to sign up?
Answer: It's more of a disincentive. If no doctors sign,
Blue Cross designates the doctors. These doctors
get full reimbursement.
Question: Are there major changes in coverage or benefits?
Answer: The benefits are similar to KeyCare, so long as
you stay in the network. If you go outside the
network, the penalty is 25% of the allowable
charge.
Question: How does the new plan work with major medical?
Answer: There is still major medical as a part of the
plan.
President Geyer thanked Ms. Spencer for sharing her views
and concerns so openly with the Senate.
VI. Adoption of agenda
The agenda was adopted with the addition of two items:
Faculty-legislator hospitality and a resolution on health
care.
VII. Approval of minutes
A. Senate Cabinet minutes of 3 April 1992 were accepted.
B. Senate minutes of 17 March 1992 were approved with a
clarification.
VIII. Council, Commissions, and Committees
A. Commission on Undergraduate Studies (Senator Murray)
1. The meeting of 23 March continued the discussion of W.
Winstead's proposal to have a moratorium on academic
policy changes.
2. At the meeting of 13 April, Joyce Williams-Greene
presented the report of the Retention Committee, which
generated much discussion. The proposed calendar for
1993/94 was also considered. The calendar published in
Spectrum is most likely to be implemented.
B. Commission on Faculty Affairs (Senator Murray)
The proposal on instructors, discussed at the last
Senate meeting, passed the CFA and will go to
University Council on Monday. The initial employment
will be for one year; subsequent employment will be for
either one or two years. There are explicit provisions
for notification of non-reappointment. Both the
Provost and the legal counsel considered that the
proposal would not give rise to claims of de facto
tenure and that the university needed to give strong
support to the instructorate. The proposal does not
require a department to follow the policy; departments
may continue to hire part-time instructors.
IX. Unfinished business: Resolution on Support for Domestic
Travel, Senate Resolution 1991-1992A (appended to 14 April
agenda, with minor language changes). (Senator McDaniels)
The motion was made and seconded to take the resolution off
the table. Discussion centered on clarifying who would be
eligible for the grants, the number of people who might be
included (probably between 150-250), the amount of the
awards, the geographic area covered.
Senator McDaniels accepted two changes: to change the range
from "$500-$1000" to "less than $1000," and to drop
"continental" from "continental USA." An amendment
specifying eligibility, "untenured tenure track or
continuing appointment track faculty who have been at
Virginia Tech less than five years," was approved, 21-7.
The resolution as amended passed unanimously. A copy of the
resolution is appended to thee minutes.
X. New business
A. Election of officers (Senator Eng)
1. Nominations:
President - Leon Geyer
Vice President - David deWolf
Secretary - Marilyn Norstedt
There were no further nominations from the floor.
2. The slate as presented was elected.
B. Faculty-legislator hospitality (President Geyer)
Former Senator Hillison attended the spring Alumni
Association meeting on behalf of the Senate. He
reported to President Geyer that, for the Commonwealth
Day football game (Tech vs. UVa), the Norfolk and
Southern is running a special train from Norfolk to
bring members of the state legislature to the game. A
concern is the lack of lodging in Blacksburg. A
possible alternative would be to have legislators stay
in faculty members' homes, which could be good PR for
the university if handled well. Would the Senate be
interested?
After discussion - some wondered what railway station
in Blacksburg would be used, others asked it the hosts
might get complimentary game tickets - there was a
consensus that the idea was worth pursuing. A straw
vote showed approval.
C. Resolution on health care (Senator Bunce)
1. Prior to the presentation of the resolution, Senator
Tideman responded to Senator Bunce's request that
someone defend the Key Advantage proposal: Perhaps the
intent of the program is to stop people from "wasting"
health care resources because they cost so little.
They are unconcerned about medical resources. The
state has decided that the way to better manage these
resources is to have a "gate-keeper," either the PCP or
the 800 number. The program is flawed, but it deserves
attention. Senator Bunce pointed out that it has never
been explained how the money will be saved.
2. After further discussion, Senator Bunce presented the
following resolution:
Whereas the primary benefit of a health-care insurance
program is to protect the enrollee from bearing
personally the cost of catastrophic diagnostic and
treatment procedures,
and whereas the Key Advantage health-care plan will limit
the choice of both primary care and specialist physicians
unless state employees are willing to pay a significant
proportion of medical costs,
it follows that the Key Advantage health-care program
will represent a significant erosion of our present
benefits program since state employees will either have
to accept the services of enrolled physicians only or pay
a potentially severe financial penalty,
therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University finds
the Key Advantage health-care program to be
unsatisfactory as a sole program and therefore requests
that the Department of Personnel and Training offer Key
Advantage as an option to the current programs rather
than as the single mandatory health-care program.
Senator Bunce moved acceptance of the resolution. The
motion was seconded.
3. Discussion centered on options and implementation.
Perhaps specific options should be made. Should options
be tied to cost considerations? This would be difficult,
considering the constantly developing medical procedures.
Could we ask that the university be free to look
elsewhere for an option while details are being worked
out? The resolution does not address the problem of
implementation procedures, even if we have options.
4. Senator Shumsky suggested two additional clauses:
a. Following paragraph two, insert:
and whereas adequate procedures have not been
developed for the implementation of the Key
Advantage health-care plan,
b. Add to the final paragraph:
and that implementation of the Key Advantage plan be
delayed for one year.
5. Senator Bunce said he was in contact Joan Munford's
office and would see that the resolution, if passed,
would be phoned or faxed to her in the morning. Senator
Williams moved the Shumsky amendment, which was seconded.
Discussion centered on whether implementation should be
included and whether the option was a reasonable way to
go. The amendment presupposes the option.
6. By voice vote, the amendment was defeated. The original
motion, to pass the resolution as it stands, passed
unanimously to Senate applause.
XI. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
10:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Marilyn L. Norstedt, Secretary
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Resolution on Support for Domestic Travel,
Senate Resolution 1991-1992 A:
Whereas, the funds available for new faculty to travel to
professional conferences in the last 3-5 years has been severely
restricted just when these new faculty need to be establishing
themselves by presenting papers and teaming up with colleagues at
other research universities,
Whereas, there are very limited funds available for travel either
in Virginia or in the USA,
Whereas, at the start of their careers new faculty especially need
to establish themselves professionally in order to earn tenure and
promotion at Virginia Tech,
Whereas, the Faculty Senate is particularly concerned about
providing the most favorable climate possible in order that junior
faculty members can succeed here at Virginia Tech, and
Whereas, the University has a supplemental grants program to
support faculty presentations at international conferences and
enhance the reputation of the University,
Now, therefore be it resolved by the Faculty Senate, that the
Faculty Senate President be instructed to ask the Provost to
continue to request $125,000 for supplemental grants for
international travel and to include a new $125,000 for supplemental
grants for domestic travel for untenured tenure track or continuing
appointment track faculty who have been at Virginia Tech less than
five years,
And be it further resolved, that these grants would be less than
$1,000 for a faculty member presenting an accepted paper or
presentation at a state or national meeting in the USA.
Passed by the Faculty Senate
14 April 1992